First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-tools-developers AT lists.cellml.org 
A list for the developers of CellML tools

Text archives Help


[cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] Announcement of PCEnv 0.6rc1 (release candidate for PCEnv 0.6)


Chronological Thread 
  • From: alan.garny at dpag.ox.ac.uk (Alan Garny)
  • Subject: [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] Announcement of PCEnv 0.6rc1 (release candidate for PCEnv 0.6)
  • Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:37:01 -0000
> >> The first release candidate for PCEnv version 0.6 has been released.
> >> This is the first version of PCEnv since 0.1 that can run on OS X;
> >> there
> >> are also a number of other improvements since PCEnv 0.5.
> >> More information, and the released files themselves, are available
> at
> >> http://www.cellml.org/downloads/pcenv/releases/0.6rc1
> >>
> >> A release candidate will become a release one week from announcement
> on
> >> this list if there are no problems identified with it.
> >
> > Don't you think that ONE week (?!) might be a bit short? I mean that
> one of
> > the biggest changes in PCEnv is that it now works under OS X. So, I
> would
> > expect people wanting to test it under that operating system to need
> a bit
> > more than one week. Even for those who use Windows and/or Linux in
> fact...
> >
> The one week period between the release of the release candidates and
> the final release is a long-standing policy which has existed since the
> PCEnv project was first created (and was carried over from the
> mozCellML release policy).

Is that supposed to make it right?

> The purpose of the release candidate period is to give
> people a chance to find any particularly critical bugs in the packaged
> up version (for example, that it doesn't install / run at all for some
> reason... although we perform our own functional tests before making a
> release as well). It isn't intended to be a feedback period about
> features or anything else like that - such feedback has to be made
> before we start to stabilise for a release, or otherwise be considered
> for the next release (and so doesn't have to be in the one week period).

I don't think I mentioned feedback at any point. I think I am pretty clear
what the release candidate is for. It nonetheless remains that someone
should spend at least one full working day on a release candidate such as
for PCEnv to find out whether it's working as expected. That would, however,
be for people who have already used PCEnv before and know their way around.
Now, if you think that you may have new users (incl. ones who use Mac OS X),
I think it's pretty obvious that they will need to invest more than one day
on PCEnv. You cannot, however, expect them to stop everything just so that
they can check that PCEnv works fine for them. Some people may have
deadlines they have to meet, may be travelling, may be on holiday, etc. If
anything, I would allow for 2 weeks.

> We always have the next release to fix bugs and support feature
> requests
> that come up, it is only the really critical problems that would block
> the transition from release candidate to release (otherwise we would
> never make a release), and so a week should be more than enough time
> for
> that.

Yes, that's what we discussed long ago and something that I overall agree
with (I would, indeed, also fix small bugs if possible).

Alan



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page